<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC @ Sep 4 2006, 05:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I agree with assists, 8 apg is a stretch.</div>So do I, but I don't think it's that big of one when Brad Miller averaged 5 apg this season. Still somewhat of a stretch though.
I forgot about that Jerry West quote, thanks Balla. Jerry is not the kind of guy to exagerate so i think it must be spot on. In the current gamehe could get 5blks per i think, players have faster and higher releases and this would make it harder to blk. IMO
You know what dogma? You're absolutely pathetic and i really do not care about how "respected you really are". or whatever crap is being said. As a moderator you should not be throwing the word "idiot" around when you're not even sure on the topic. An example of this year was you calling me a tard for spelling some word wrong and when you tried to correct me, you got it wrong also.What kind of a moderator calls others idiots simply because their giving their own opinions? It's something i haven't seen on any forum and i have yet to see it from any other moderator on this board. Unless the opinion being stated is touching on an issue where some comments are insensetive.Cry, moan, call me an idiot or whatever you want to say. Call this my own "payback" for you calling me a tard. I don't care. But the truth is you're not doing anyone good when you throw around insults. All you're doing it turning away users. And you know what i also find funny? You talking about "being respected" and you bringing "more to the site" like it's something worth mentioning. Who cares. Just because you bring more to this site doesn't mean CB can't call you out.edit: I guarentee by the time i wake up tomorrow this post will be gone.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (valo35 @ Sep 4 2006, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think the more complex defenses along with the bigger, stronger faster players is going to hurt Wilt Chamberlain and would really throw him off these days. He won't just be facing only the center when he is playing, the team defenses of today will cause him to be facing defenses from the entire team. He is going to have bigger, longer arms waving in his face from all around every time he shot these days, than what he had in the past. When he gets hit, or bumped after getting the ball, it's going to be harder than what he got bumped back in the days, simply because the people bumping him are going to be bigger and stronger than what they was back in the 60's.</div>I disagree, Balla is definately right. Defenses in the 1960's hit hard and the refs didn't bail out players in those days, when you got hit, you got hit and had to deal with it. Wilt Chamberlain got so beat up during his rookie year he considered retiring after just one year. Each team in those days had an "enforcer", whenever somebody made their team look bad, they got physical and kicked the sh*t out of players, brawls were very common back then. Defenders had tricks, they would elbow hard in the paint, they would punch below the belt, they would grab or do anything to slow down the ball carrier. The refs didn't seem to mind.The NBA has come a long way since then, nowdays, a defender isn't allowed to touch a player. The top scorers and bangers who played in the 60's would find today's game easier and less painful. Wilt Chamberlain would have his way with whoever is guarding him. He was double and triple teamed in his day by bruisers, he wouldn't mind the soft game today. The game today is not faster than it was in the 60's, it isn't nearly as physical. Today, players cry when they catch an elbow. It's not the same.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>edit: I guarentee by the time i wake up tomorrow this post will be gone.</div><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I disagree, Balla is definately right. Defenses in the 1960's hit hard and the refs didn't bail out players in those days, when you got hit, you got hit and had to deal with it. Wilt Chamberlain got so beat up during his rookie year he considered retiring after just one year. Each team in those days had an "enforcer", whenever somebody made their team look bad, they got physical and kicked the sh*t out of players, brawls were very common back then. Defenders had tricks, they would elbow hard in the paint, they would punch below the belt, they would grab or do anything to slow down the ball carrier. The refs didn't seem to mind.The NBA has come a long way since then, nowdays, a defender isn't allowed to touch a player. The top scorers and bangers who played in the 60's would find today's game easier and less painful. Wilt Chamberlain would have his way with whoever is guarding him. He was double and triple teamed in his day by bruisers, he wouldn't mind the soft game today. The game today is not faster than it was in the 60's, it isn't nearly as physical. Today, players cry when they catch an elbow. It's not the same.</div>Bingo, The Spurs were known for that. They had a tough defensive line they called "The bruise Brothers"All they did was play tough defense on the other teams star players, George Johnson, Dave Corzine, Mark Olberding, Reggie Johnson. Theres one I am forgetting...
This is sort of along the lines of the Shaq/Wilt debate, so I'll chime in.IMO Wilt would be a GOOD player in this era. That is assuming he had the same body, same bball IQ, and same skill as he did back in his heyday. But, as I brought up in the Shaq debate, defense these days are MUCH tougher. It isn't even a debate there. There is a reason that teams scored well over 125PPG, while now the highest PPG average is 108PPG by the Suns. And it isn't player quality, as the quality nowadays is incredible. And it isn't just complex defenses that can be aimed to stopping a single player (if Shaq was in Wilt's era he woulda been by far the MDE), it is the fact that players have gotten taller and far more athletic. Just look at Gerald Wallace, a SF who averages over 2BPG. Wilt would have been considered averagely athletic nowadays, where back then he was the most ahtleitc big man to ever step foot on the court, which along with his sheer size is why he was so dominant. But if he stepped into the constant double/triple teams that a player like Shaq gets, or had to face a very athletic, even bigger man like Yao, he wouldn't succeed very well.Now look at his offense. Back in the day he relied on extremely easy, very close to basket shots. He wouldn't be able to get those shots in this era. Even Shaq has a hard time getting that, and he is similar in height and weighs a lot more, and is extremely athletic. Wilt didn't have a KG like midrange game, and his FT% wasn't good, so I just can't see him doing much offensively.Bottom line is I can't see a slightly bigger Dwight Howard int erms of body, with no midrange game, being averagely athletic at best, bad FT shooter, and having to face the defenses of today succeeding and being more than just an average-good player.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Sep 5 2006, 05:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is sort of along the lines of the Shaq/Wilt debate, so I'll chime in.IMO Wilt would be a GOOD player in this era. That is assuming he had the same body, same bball IQ, and same skill as he did back in his heyday. But, as I brought up in the Shaq debate, defense these days are MUCH tougher. It isn't even a debate there. There is a reason that teams scored well over 130PPG, while now the highest PPG average is 108PPG by the Suns. And it isn't player quality, as the quality nowadays is incredible. And it isn't just complex defenses that can be aimed to stopping a single player (if Shaq was in Wilt's era he woulda been by far the MDE), it is the fact that players have gotten taller and far more athletic. Just look at Gerald Wallace, a SF who averages over 2BPG. Wilt would have been considered averagely athletic nowadays, where back then he was the most ahtleitc big man to ever step foot on the court, which along with his sheer size is why he was so dominant. But if he stepped into the constant double/triple teams that a player like Shaq gets, or had to face a very athletic, even bigger man like Yao, he wouldn't succeed very well.Now look at his offense. Back in the day he relied on extremely easy, very close to basket shots. He wouldn't be able to get those shots in this era. Even Shaq has a hard time getting that, and he is similar in height and weighs a lot more, and is extremely athletic. Wilt didn't have a KG like midrange game, and his FT% wasn't good, so I just can't see him doing much offensively.Bottom line is I can't see a slightly bigger Dwight Howard int erms of body, with no midrange game, being averagely athletic at best, bad FT shooter, and having to face the defenses of today succeeding and being more than just an average-good player.</div>You are COMPLETELY WRONG. Defense today is not tougher than in the 60's, I don't care what you say, check the tapes. The reason teams in the 60's scored over 130 points a lot was because the pace was much quicker and teams shot the ball more.Contrary to what many beleive, Wilt Chamberlain didn't rely on close to the basket scores. He had range and some great moves, he had fallaways, finger rolls, jump hooks(which he hated), he had a great touch off the glass as well. If you listen to his interviews and such, you'll find that Wilt hated to dunk, he felt it didn't make him look as skillfull as he actually was.Shaq WOULD NOT be the most dominant ever, all his fatass can do is dunk, there is NO skill involved in that.Are you kidding me? Yao Ming is a bi*ch.There was an equal percentage of 7 footers in the 1960's as there are today, only the average player height back then was shorter.Wilt Chamberlain was double and triple teamed during his entire basketball career. Why do you think he left college early? he was constantly surrounded by 4 guys at a time. It was no different in the NBA. Only in the 60's, defenders were very physical and hit you pretty hard.Also, the NBA tried numerous times to slow down Wilt by changing the rules. That is the only time the NBA had to ever change the rules to make the game fair for defenses to play ONE MAN.This is getting real annoying, please, if anybody wants to post here, do some research.
[quote name='Michael Bryant' post='152470' date='Sep 5 2006, 06:27 PM']You are COMPLETELY WRONG. Defense today is not tougher than in the 60's, I don't care what you say, check the tapes.[/quote]Just because they were allowed to be more physical does NOT mean they were tougher defenses to score on. Nowadays you can totally alienate a player from the game if you setup a defense right. Just look at Bron vs the Pistons. I am 5'8'', what is going to be harder: A 5'5'' kid putting hands on me, getting physical, elbowing me, etc... or a 5'7'' kid with a 35 inch leap whereas I only have a 25 inch leap, and a help defense that has almost perfected the defensive game and has kids just as tall/nearly as tall as me? No sh*t the pace was much faster, because the defense couldn't stop it. Defenses learned in the '90's how to really slow that down. It has only been since the defensive 3 second rule and more of an evolution in the fast break offense that teams are starting to score more. All within 5-10 feet. It would be a lot harder shooting that over 6'9'' Ben Wallace than a 6'10'', unathletic white man. Hmmmm, right here you just lost all credibility. Once again, very immature and not true. Wrong. His toughest competitors were almost all 6'10'' and under. And it isn't the fact that they have gotten taller and bigger (centers these days are far bulkier and stronger than they were back then), but moreso more athletic. Athleticism was Wilt's biggest advantage next to his size. Nowadays he wouldn't have that advantage at all. I never said he wans't double and triple teamed, but would you rather be double teamed by 2 6'9'' white guys with no hops or double teamed by Rasheed and Ben? Because Wilt was so much bigger and more athletic than anything the NBA had ever seen. But this isn't about him being most dominanat then. Now he wouldn't have any of the advantages he had then, except height.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Sep 5 2006, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>All within 5-10 feet. It would be a lot harder shooting that over 6'9'' Ben Wallace than a 6'10'', unathletic white man. but would you rather be double teamed by 2 6'9'' white guys with no hops or double teamed by Rasheed and Ben?Because Wilt was so much bigger and more athletic than anything the NBA had ever seen. But this isn't about him being most dominanat then. Now he wouldn't have any of the advantages he had then, except height.</div>All that right there ^^^ is some of the stupidest sh*t I've ever read. You know NOTHING about the history of the game. Stop wasting your time as well as mine with such crap. You are seeing nothing but your opinion on the game. Please, leave this thread open to someone who KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Haha, ok man. If you knew ANYTHING about basketball you'd know Yao isn't a bi*ch and Shaq isn't some fata$$ where all he can do is dunk. Wilt's advantages were his size and athleticism. Before him there was no one of his size (height and muscularity) and no center as athletic. Nowadays he would ahve neither advanatage. Defense nowadays are a lot tougher to score on, which is why teams aren't as fast paced and don't shoot as much anymore, despite rule changes that benefit offense.So please, before you show everyone how much of an immature baby that you are, just stop posting about things you know nothing about.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Sep 5 2006, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Haha, ok man. If you knew ANYTHING about basketball you'd know Yao isn't a bi*ch and Shaq isn't some fata$$ where all he can do is dunk. Wilt's advantages were his size and athleticism. Before him there was no one of his size (height and muscularity) and no center as athletic. Nowadays he would ahve neither advanatage. Defense nowadays are a lot tougher to score on, which is why teams aren't as fast paced and don't shoot as much anymore, despite rule changes that benefit offense.So please, before you show everyone how much of an immature baby that you are, just stop posting about things you know nothing about.</div>First, Yao is a bi*ch.Second, Shaq is fat and all he can do is dunk. (gee, I feel like I just wrote that)Third, No, Wilt Chamberlain would be a great player today because he was extremely talented and had a wide variety of moves in the post seldom seen today. He was a very very very gifted player. Size had nothing to do with it, he'd still be great if he was 6'4".Fourth, I'm not stupid here, I'm not the one who thinks players in the 1960's were short, no-talent white guys. That is stupid. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>That was a really good comeback after being owned</div>You're not on his side are you!?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 5 2006, 08:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>First, Yao is a bi*ch.Second, Shaq is fat and all he can do is dunk. (gee, I feel like I just wrote that)Third, No, Wilt Chamberlain would be a great player today because he was extremely talented and had a wide variety of moves in the post seldom seen today. He was a very very very gifted player. Size had nothing to do with it, he'd still be great if he was 6'4".Fourth, I'm not stupid here, I'm not the one who thinks players in the 1960's were short, no-talent white guys. That is stupid. You're not on his side are you!?</div>One of the dumbest things Ive ever heard.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 5 2006, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>First, Yao is a bi*ch.Second, Shaq is fat and all he can do is dunk. (gee, I feel like I just wrote that)Third, No, Wilt Chamberlain would be a great player today because he was extremely talented and had a wide variety of moves in the post seldom seen today. He was a very very very gifted player. Size had nothing to do with it, he'd still be great if he was 6'4".Fourth, I'm not stupid here, I'm not the one who thinks players in the 1960's were short, no-talent white guys. That is stupid.</div>No, he isn't.Once again, no he isn't. He has so much athleticism for his size and is a very smart player. He was talented, but not as talented as KG, and not nearly as athletic and not used to the defenses, competition and rules of today. He didn't have amazing post moves, he had enough to use over the much small and unathletic defender.Never said all of them were. But the competition was FAR, and I mean FAR less athletic, a LOT smaller (not just in height, in the strength and weight department as well), and not half as knowledgable about defense as they are today. And that is excluding coaches of today setting up defenses that can slow down or totally shut down the best players in the world. Wilt would have not been any different.
Let's agree to disagree. Okay fine, he has a crappy jump hook too. You'd be very supprised. If you can find it, you should watch tape of Wilt when he played. He was more talented than KG. You need to start giving these players the credit they deserve. Many of them were exellent athletes, we just don't hear about them today. It's a shame. It's easier to say players today are stronger, they have much better equiment. Players in those days did it the hard way. They played tough because of that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 5 2006, 07:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I must be the only one here older than 15.</div>To say most of his points come off dunks is one thing.To say all he can do is dunk is another thing and makes you sound like an ignorant.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Third, No, Wilt Chamberlain would be a great player today because he was extremely talented and had a wide variety of moves in the post seldom seen today. He was a very very very gifted player. Size had nothing to do with it, he'd still be great if he was 6'4".</div>Think about this, what if teams decided to hack-a-Wilt? A 51% career free throw shooter isn't going to get the job done. When you surround Wilt with players like Diop and Dampier he is definitely going to be slowed done no matter how athletic.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Think about this, what if teams decided to hack-a-Wilt? A 51% career free throw shooter isn't going to get the job done. When you surround Wilt with players like Diop and Dampier he is definitely going to be slowed done no matter how athletic.</div>They did do that. The Hack-a-Shaq originated with Wilt being intentionally fouled.Again, you guys aren't giving Wilt fair credit. Diop and Dampier couldn't stop Wilt.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 5 2006, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You'd be very supprised. If you can find it, you should watch tape of Wilt when he played. He was more talented than KG.</div>I've watched quite a few tapes of Wilt when he played. He was not as talented as KG. Wasn't as good of a passer, athletic, and couldn't shoot midrange like KG. Not to mention KG is much more agressive, and due to the natural evolution of the game has a much wider variety in his offensive and defensive arsenal and has a much better knowledge of the game.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You need to start giving these players the credit they deserve. Many of them were exellent athletes, we just don't hear about them today. It's a shame. It's easier to say players today are stronger, they have much better equiment. Players in those days did it the hard way. They played tough because of that.</div>For their time they were good athletes, but Wilt was so far ahead of everyone in that era. But that is not the debate, it is how good Wilt would do in this era. He wouldn't have the athletic advantage that he had back then, his size advantage wouldn't be nearly as important, and since he didn't have the midrange jumpshot that makes a player like KG or Duncan so effective his offensive game would be very limited. They played tough because good money was harder to come by and the rules weren't nearly as strict. That is why players in the NCAA play so tough, because they know it could very well be their last chance.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 5 2006, 07:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They did do that. The Hack-a-Shaq originated with Wilt being intentionally fouled.Again, you guys aren't giving Wilt fair credit. Diop and Dampier couldn't stop Wilt.</div>I'm really interested in hearing WHY you give Wilt so much credit. How many games have you actually seen? 2-3 maybe? I'm positive you are making your opinions on articles and stats because there are hardly any games from that far back.
